This Court passed the following

COMMON ORDER

Since the parties and the lis involved in these revisions are one and the same, these revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common order.

Heard Sri V.S.R.M.V. Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel, representing Sri Pushadapu Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Kiran Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent in all the revisions.

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CRP No.251 of 2026 is filed assailing the order dated 22.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.503 of 2025 in O.S.No.229 of 2018by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal. Likewise, CRP No.254 of 2026 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.501 of 2025 in O.S.No.178 of 2018 and CRP No.256 of 2026 is filed against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.502 of 2025 in O.S.No.220 of 2018.

Respective respondents have filed the aforesaid suits against the petitioners herein seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties therein.

It is also the specific contention of the petitioners - defendants herein that 1st respondent in CRP No.254 of 2026 along with 15 others filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.355 of 2019 (old O.S.No.775 of 2019) against the petitioners herein before II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, seeking declaration of title, perpetual injunction and declaration of sale deeds etc., as null and void.

The petitioners herein filed the aforesaid interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. Nos. 503, 502 and 501 of 2025 under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) to stay all further proceedings in the said suits till disposal of O.S.No.355 of 2019 contending that O.S.No.355 of 2019 is a comprehensive suit and aforesaid three suits are for injunction simplicitor only. As three suits are older suits to that of O.S.No.355 of 2019, these are to be stayed.

1st respondent/plaintiff filed counters opposing the said applications contending that O.S.No.355 of 2019 is a subsequent suit, as such Section 10 of the CPC has no application. Learned trial Court dismissed the said applications holding that as per Section 10 of the CPC, a subsequent suit filed in respect of same schedule of property between the same parties ought to be stayed but not the previous suit. The present suits were filed prior in time. O.S.No.355 of 2019 is a subsequent suit. The present interlocutory applications were filed at a belated stage when the matters were posted for the arguments of the petitioners herein/defendants. Filing of subsequent suit is very much in knowledge of the parties and their counsel.

Challenging the said orders, the petitioners filed the present revisions.

In the light of the same, Section 10 of the CPC is relevant and the same is extracted:-

10. Stay of suit - No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital vs. Olympic Pharma Care (P) Limited, 2004 (6) SCC 756 and Santosh Kumar vs. Bhai Mool Singh, AIR 1958 SC 321 to contend that Section 10 of the CPC applies to the present suit.

There is no dispute that the aforesaid suits were filed in the year 2018, prior to filing of O.S.No.355 of 2019 which was filed only in September, 2019. Therefore,